The optimum ratio of fee-earners to business services staff for UK-headquartered firms is 0.7:1, exclusive new research by The Lawyer has revealed.
The data, which forms the basis of the new UK 200: Business Services report, highlights how firms across the market are finding ways of working more efficiently, including examining staffing ratios.
It includes a raft of benchmarking data both at a firm-wide level and across six core business services teams: HR, IT, marketing, PR and BD, finance, facilities and secretarial/document production.
At a firm-wide level DLA Piper has the highest number of business services staff of any firm headquartered in the UK, with a total of 3,529 staff worldwide. The firm had 4,316 fee-earners globally giving it a ratio of 0.82:1 (see tables below).
In contrast Hogan Lovells had an estimated 2,750 fee-earners last year with 3,050 non fee-earning staff globally, making it the only firm in this year’s top 10 to have a ratio in excess of 1:1.
The firm’s deputy COO Darren Mitchell said that as both a global firm and one that had grown significantly in recent years via a major merger Hogan Lovells’ staffing ratios had changed notably.
“As a general trend our ratios have been going down in a terms of business services to qualified lawyers they’re now at around 0.7 to one,” said Mitchell. “But they vary depending on the country or jurisdiction.”
While most firms are targeting efficiencies across all of their business services groups, today’s full report also includes indications that many firms are now focused on building up non fee-earning capabilities.
An analysis of all of the staffing ratios at this year’s top 10-largest firms by revenue reveals that in every case except one, Norton Rose Fulbright, the ratio of business services staff to fee-earners has increased over the past three years.
An executive summary of the UK 200: Business Services report is published today in The Lawyer. To purchase the full report please contact Richard Edwards on 0207 970 4672 or at richard.edwards@centaurmedia.com
Headcount shouldn’t be the metric, but added value and return on investment?
To suggest that there is an “optimum” ratio between fee earners and others is bizarre. Do you actually mean “average”?
Sounds like mumbo jumbo numbers.
Different law firms have different business models, so they can’t automatically be compared.
Also it depends on the skills needed for their strategy’s execution. For instance big international firms growing through acquisition (like DLA) will need different skills compared to, say, national or regional firms looking to cut costs to boost profits.
I think this is a little naïve of The Lawyer to suggest an optimum, or even an average or a median. Its interesting data, just like the PWC data, but as noted in earlier comments, different businesses have different models. Staff as % of revenue, colocation with or away from main stream fee earners, time series against revenue growth, etc, would all be different way of maybe looking at this information more usefully. Haven’t read the report, but the definitional line between fee earners and “support” can also be muddled in some firms. I’d bet, however, that the US firms–in general–have lower ratios.
Why should the clients pay for this type of administrative metastatic cancer? In good US firms, the ratio is much lower.
I agree with all of the comments above – except Anon on 30 Nov at 4.42pm (which I consider not well informed). I would also like to see which firms participate in any form of outsourcing. Numbers without context are not very helpful…
I would like more information about how firms are using non-fee earning staff to support their cross-cultural integration, and whether they are doing this through hiring or outsourcing.
Bums on seats or dollars in the bank. Different firms and different jurisdictions have different models and cost bases. Outsourcing has an effect as does nearshoring. Does the army of non legal staff in low cost centers in the Philippines or Belfast count as fee earners if they are doing contract review, due diligence or discovery. If a firm has a business model that means they are profitable in their market then how they get there in terms of staffing structure is hardly relevant. This report is sadly one dimensional.
This seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog. Why is it thought to be a good thing that support staff should be engaged in such large proportions?